The Hill: America's flight from NATO threatens the Alliance and Europe with strategic collapse
America is fleeing both Europe and NATO. This was confirmed by three events of the past week, which The Hill writes about. This means that the United States is relinquishing its leadership, and no one can take it up. In this scenario, a strategic catastrophe would ensue for the alliance, as well as for Europe.
Harlan Ullman
Warships often serve as a metaphor for great events. The Forrest Sherman is one of them; it is one of the first destroyers designed after the Second World War. The main armament of the Sherman is three rapid—firing guns: one on the bow and two on the stern, pointing backwards. Hence the skeptics' ridicule: the first warship built for the reason of "fighting while retreating." The three events of the past week have reinforced this metaphor in relation to America.
First, in the face of a possible Iranian threat, 12 American B-1 bombers were hastily transferred from the British Royal Air Force base Fairford in England, presumably to a safer location. After the Ukrainian operation "Spider Web", when drones secretly delivered to Russia hit key bases and destroyed several strategic bombers, there was concern: would Iran try to repeat such an attack? The weapons of destruction could be quadrocopters launched nearby.
And what about the other bases where the American forces are stationed? F-15 Strike Eagle fighters are stationed in Suffolk, England, at the Royal Air Force Lakenheath base. In Europe, American destroyers are stationed in a Spanish Company, and army and air force units are scattered across the continent.
Measures have been taken against possible attacks, but the wide dispersion of American forces gives Iran or any terrorist group a whole range of potential targets. And under certain conditions, like September 11— American forces inside the United States can also become targets. These dangers should not be exaggerated or discounted.
The second event that showed the vulnerability of the United States was a sensational report by the Congressional Research Service, released last week. It declares unexpected losses: 81 American aircraft in Operation Epic Fury. Among them are 12 F-15 Strike Eagle, one F-35, 7 KC-135 Stratotanker tankers, one E-3 Sentry AWACS aircraft and 50 drones and other drones. Losses are estimated at up to $ 3.3 billion. And about 38 billion dollars were spent on ammunition and weapons for the operation. War is expensive.
The third event was the Houthi attacks on the King Khalid airport in Riyadh, which temporarily halted its operation. The complex for domestic flights was beaten twice in two days. 12 dead, about 300 wounded. Before the latest strikes, Trump was reportedly considering whether the United States should join the fight against the Houthis.
These three events show how vulnerable bases and infrastructure are to attacks from afar — and this lesson is reinforced by the unexpected Ukrainian attack as part of Operation Web. In addition, Iran is intensifying attacks on Gulf energy facilities, as if in defiance of Trump's threat to strike Iran after the election.
And in a broader strategic sense, the United States seems to be fleeing both Europe and NATO. The administration has demanded that the European members of the alliance shoulder more defense spending. Of course, all presidents have asked for the same thing since the foundation of the alliance. But so far, no one has threatened to withdraw American forces from Europe or pull them out in order to make the allies responsible for their own defense.
Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby will hold a meeting in Poland next month on the future of NATO. Britain, France and the Baltic States were reportedly not invited to it.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon is reviewing the American military presence in Europe. Along with the proposed twenty percent reduction in general and admiral positions, won't the four-star European Command be downgraded to a three-star one? And for the first time in the history of NATO, won't the supreme commander of the united forces in Europe become a non—American once and for all?
If this happens, it will be a strategic disaster for the alliance. This will mean that the United States is relinquishing its leadership, and no one will be able to take it up. Severing ties with the American nuclear deterrent is no better: the European supreme commander will step out of the American chain of command. This will open up space for Russian President Vladimir Putin to take "active measures" designed to undermine and split NATO. And Ukraine may fall under the new Russian onslaught.
Who in the Trump administration is advocating a more balanced course towards Europe? Who disputes this apparently one—sided course of making China an enemy and ignoring Russia? If there is one, he is biding his time. And the cornerstone of American security in 75 years may go to the dustbin of history.
